This article traces the argument about AI dependence back to Samuel Butler's 1863 letter, highlighting the risk of acquiescence through indispensability rather than domination.
The idea of whether machines will dominate us is generally treated as a new one in current discussions on AI risk, since in 1863 Samuel Butler published a letter titled 'Darwin Among the Machines' which made an argument closely resembling the one in today's debate. He stated that the real danger was not that machines would gain control of power, but that people would find machines so useful that it would become practically impossible to get rid of them, so that by that stage the question of who was actually in charge would have already been answered — no matter who seemed to be in control. He said that a society which, in principle, could not destroy its machines had already "created a race of beings towards whom it is beyond our power to destroy" and had thus become "acquiescent in our bondage." This is a quite different claim from the one that says 'superintelligence takes over'; it's similar to the sorts of arguments currently being made regarding algorithmic dependence, attention economy lock-in, and infrastructure that is too deeply embedded to be undone — arguments that can be applied to any technology that is sufficiently indispensable, not just to intelligent machines. The full letter, together with the historical background (it is also the immediate source of the "Butlerian Jihad" in Dune, a fact that most people are unaware of), can be found here: https://romaricjannel.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-mechanical-life I'm wondering if people here consider "acquiescence through indispensability" to be a real and separate risk category or whether it's just a rewording of dependence anxiety that appears each time a major technology is introduced.
A brief opinion piece questioning whether reliance on AI for software development leads to skill atrophy among engineers, potentially creating a plateau in AI progress until recursive self-improvement becomes possible.
The article discusses the growing dependency on AI for everyday tasks and raises concerns about potential future monetization by companies, emphasizing fears of over-reliance.
The author investigates whether existing societal degradation and institutional decline are preconditions that accelerate AI dependence, rather than just consequences, drawing from AI safety research and external studies on cognition and institutions.
The author warns that the real danger of AI is not hostility but human over-reliance, which could erode critical thinking and concentrate information control among a few companies.
The article argues that AI, while useful, is harmful to individuals, organizations, and society due to environmental, intellectual, and human costs, and calls for resistance until these harms are addressed.